From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Sami Wagiaalla <swagiaal@redhat.com>
Cc: Project Archer <archer@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Koenig lookup patch 3
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:29:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3my2vh4zj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AEF2E3C.30601@redhat.com> (Sami Wagiaalla's message of "Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:08:44 -0500")
>>>>> "Sami" == Sami Wagiaalla <swagiaal@redhat.com> writes:
Tom> It seems like these additions would introduce a parser ambiguity,
Tom> because UNKNOWN_NAME could be parsed as adl_func or as name_not_typename
Tom> (and hence variable).
Tom> Is bison silent about this?
Sami> Good point. Same goes for everything that is common between name and
Sami> name_no_typename. Anyways I have changed this to:
It still seems like the new productions are ambiguous, because
UNKNOWN_NAME alone is an `exp'. If bison doesn't give more warnings
after the patch, though, then I wouldn't worry about it.
Sami> * c-exp.y: Created token UNKOWN_NAME.
Sami> Created grammar rules for UNKOWN_NAME.
Typo: should be `UNKNOWN'.
Other than that this looks good to me.
I was curious to know what happens when the current language is C, not
C++. Do we still attempt ADL?
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-09 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-13 19:58 [RFC] Koenig lookup patch Sami Wagiaalla
2009-03-13 22:10 ` Tom Tromey
2009-03-17 18:39 ` Sami Wagiaalla
2009-03-17 21:25 ` Tom Tromey
2009-04-29 15:51 ` [RFC] Koenig lookup patch 2 Sami Wagiaalla
2009-04-30 0:19 ` Tom Tromey
2009-08-27 14:35 ` Sami Wagiaalla
2009-08-27 21:49 ` Tom Tromey
2009-10-14 20:29 ` [RFC] Koenig lookup patch 3 Sami Wagiaalla
2009-10-14 21:01 ` Sami Wagiaalla
2009-10-15 20:48 ` Tom Tromey
2009-11-02 19:11 ` Sami Wagiaalla
2009-11-09 19:29 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2009-11-17 16:04 ` Sami Wagiaalla
2009-11-17 20:51 ` Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3my2vh4zj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=archer@sourceware.org \
--cc=swagiaal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).